How We Choose Our Politics

           There have been a lot of theories published in recent years which attempt to explain why people make the political choices that they make. It is pretty clear that the choice goes beyond simply choosing the party which offers the best chance of an improved personal economic outcome. Some have even suggested that innate differences in brain chemistry or wiring, differences that proceed from either different fetal environment or from actual genetic differences, may predispose our political choices from the day we are born.  Some have argued that the differences are mostly cultural, but that individuals sometimes break out of their native culture and consciously choose an opposite set of values, or at least a different set.

            Someone once said, “There are two kinds of people in this world:  those who believe that all humanity can be divided into two groups—and those who don’t.”   I am one of those who believe that we can, in fact, divide all humanity into two different groups.   While leaving aside the question of where these differences come from, I believe that there really are two basic types of political instincts, and by early adolescence, people identify pretty firmly with one or the other.  Even though people do not pay any attention to politics till they are old enough to vote, the basis on which that vote will be cast has already been decided.  And I believe also that these two different sets of political instincts neatly align with the different strategies historically employed by our two major parties.

              “Red state” politics are different from “blue state” politics because red state people are different from blue state people.  It is not that we have in our gene pool the residue from having evolved “Republican brains” or Democratic brains.”   It’s that both parties, over time, have recognized that there are two types of people, and that any populist rhetoric that would appeal to one will alienate the other.  So each party had to choose its target constituency--and they did choose.  They each asked, “What kind of people could ever be persuaded to support the kind the kind of economic choices which the party establishment believes in?  And if the party believes in economic choices that few people would ever choose if the election were held strictly on that issue, then what other issue might be offered to gain their support?  The answer is that both parties are Machiavellian enough to pretend to either espouse or denounce almost any cultural issue, if it allowed them to hold power long enough to put forward their main agenda, which is mostly economic. (I say “mostly,” because I will concede that both parties have a long commitment to freedom, although they define it very differently.)

            So what are the attitudes that are associated with these two sets of instincts?  It is a long list of attitudes, and for a few people, the menu of choices is like a Chinese restaurant menu—you can choose one from column “A” and two from column “B”.   But for most people, if they choose anything from one set of political values, all or most of their other choices will be from that same set.             I have prepared a list of what I suggest as typical totemic values.  Let’s take a look at it:

A.

                  1. “Hierarchy is the natural order of things. We should all obey our God-given superiors.” (I call this “Acceptance of the Great Chain of Being.”)

                  2. “The natural order of things is equality. All authority comes only from consent of the governed. No one has the right to order you around unless you give them that right.”

B.

                  1. “Our country needs the strength of a tough, strong willed “Father Figure.”

                  2. “We need the fairness of a wise and compassionate leader.  Whether it’s a “Father figure” or a “Mother Figure” is unimportant.”

C.

                  1. “It’s the poor who are cheating us.  They are lazy, pathetic parasites.”

                  2. “It’s the rich who are cheaters. They are cunning tricksters; that’s how they got rich.”

D.

                  1. “We should respect the traditions of our grandfathers—that’s what made us great.”

                  2. “We are free to make our own traditions—it’s our grandfathers’ culture that’s holding us back.”

E.

                  1. “The people who work hardest are those at the top. That’s how they got there.”

                  2.  “The people who work hardest are those at the very bottom—and they receive almost nothing for it, which is why they are still at the bottom.”

F.

                  1. “If we put more taxes on the rich, then when it’s my turn to get rich, I’ll have to pay.”

                  2. “If we provide nothing for the unfortunate, then I’ll starve when it’s my turn to be unlucky.”

G.

                  1. “I’m shocked by the idleness of the poor!  Some of them have not worked in three generations, yet they expect us to feed them.”

                  2.  “I’m shocked by the idleness of the very rich!  Some of them have not worked in three generation, yet they fly around in private jets and expect us to obey them.”

H.               1.  "The cause of poverty is ineffective schools.  How good a job can you expect to get if  you have no basic skills, or if you can't even read?"
                   2. "Extreme poverty is the reason for poor educational outcomes. How much can you teach a small child who hasn't eaten for two days, or who has a toothache?"
I.                 1. "Broken homes are what cause poverty.  How long can a family stay out of poverty without a breadwinner's paycheck?"
                    2.  "Poverty is what causes family break up.  How long can a family stay together if the breadwinner can't find a job?"

A

           

           

            While none of these statements is likely to be true in all cases, and they all may have some truth , at least in some cases, which do you think comes closest to the truth in most cases—the first choice or the second.  If you selected choice #1 in any set, then it’s a good bet that you chose #1 in nearly all sets.  And whatever you chose, your predisposition to make that choice was firmly set before you ever entered high school, and you couldn’t change it even if you tried.